[font=Optima][color=blue] i was wondering is the sun just a ball of gas? does it have a solid core? where does it get its gas from? and if there is no o2 in space how does it burn? i know these sound like stupid ? to some of you but i dont under stand how it works.

I believe all the Stars in the Universe they are just ball of gasous which burning nuclear fusion to keep their alive.

If you call it a ball of gas, then there is no Solid core I think, but Hydrogen and Helium core.

Our Milky Way Galaxy is actually a gas-rich galaxy, when a stars is dead and it releases most of their gases into space. Star like our Sun adopt the gases from the Disk of our MK galaxy.

Angular momentum I think, when a Star spinning fast enough in the center, gravity and pressure combing together to make it burns LOL I think.

Not really....

Correct me if I was wrong

thanks for answering any body else got answers

The Sun is considered a typical star, with a spectral classification of G2 V. G2 means it's a yellow-white star, the roman numeral V means it's a main sequence dwarf star.

The Sun produces its energy by nuclear fusion - four hydrogen nuclei are fused to form single helium nuclei deep within the Suns core.

I've got a page titled Solar Storms on my site that should answer all your questions about the Sun. It's all mainstream science.

__________________
Solar Storm Monitor

The further I get from the things I care about, the less I care about how much further away I get.

Your thinking of a chemical reaction. Like when you burn firewood, it is being chemically altered to release heat, and that requires oxygen for it to burn. However, the nucleous of the atoms remain intact and untouched. While the molecules (molecules are combinations of more then one element) that make up the firewood before it was burnt are certainly different from after, the elements never change. So if you start off with 4 oxygen atoms (element) and 4 carbon atoms (element), you will still have 4 oxygen and 4 carbon atoms after it has burnt, they will simply be combined in a different form.

The sun, however, works differently. It does not get it's energy from chemical reactions. The suns power comes from fussion which actually alters the elements involved. This releases an incredible amount of energy, far more then any chemical reaction would. (Compare 2 lbs of dynomite exploding, which is chemical, with 2 lbs of hydrogen fusing in a thermonuclear weapon, which is fusion.)

I'm not sure what your background knowledge is like, but I'll try to explain what happens. A hydrogen atom is just 1 proton and 1 electron. So, if you take 4 hydrogen atoms, which gives you 4 protons and 4 electrons, and you fuse them, you will get one helium atom which is 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons. Those 2 extra protons and electrons actually combine to form 2 neutrons (the positive charge of the proton cancles the negative charge of the electron). The one helium atom also has less total energy then 4 hydrogen atoms, and that extra energy is released as heat.

Massive stars, at least eight times more massive than the Sun, can burn successively heavier fuels, the ashes of one burning cycle serve as the fuel for the next, and thereby make successively heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, silicon, calcium, etc. The Sun won't make anything much heavier than oxygen.

Eventually, a massive star encounters natural limits that prevent it from burning a fuel heavier than silicon. Once depleted of fuel, the star will collapse, turning into a huge gravity bomb. During the final nuclear burning cycle, the central core of a massive star is transformed into iron, which then collapses into a neutron star or black hole.

__________________
Solar Storm Monitor

The further I get from the things I care about, the less I care about how much further away I get.

But bear in mind that in a typical supernova, much of the newly-created iron is expelled;

in fact about the same mass of iron is expelled as the mass of our own Sun, which is of course mostly hydrogen.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

thanks everybody that helped alot

Stars and the Sun do not burn gas, the fuse hydrogen into helium, Oxygen is not necessary in this nuclear reaction. Later on in their lives they fuse carbon and oxygen.

My webpages, and the pages linked therefrom, might be helpful:

• Solar Fusion & Neutrinos
• Hertzsprung Russell Diagram And Stellar Evolution

And related to the topic, but not directly relevant:

• V838 Monocerotis
• What is the Brightest Star in the Milky Way?

Cheers.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Hi Tim,

Did you see the latest Spitzer images of V838 Mons? What do you make of them, what would the story be if the whole sequence was imaged by Spitzer, Hubble and in X-rays together?

Cheers.

Sorry,

That was NGC 246 and not V838 Mon that was imaged recently :huh: , please forget the previous post.

Cheers.

Hi Slotdrag,

For another opinion of the Sun, based on measurements of luminosity, neutrinos, elements and isotopes, see:

1. "The Sun's Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1041, Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

2. "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", Washington, DC, 2002 AAS paper (Jan 7, 2002)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n4...4/aas197/60.htm

3. "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology, The Present and Future (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

4. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

The opinions expressed there are not popular, but they are based on good measurements.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Oh, and Dr Manuel's opinions are not highly regarded because they are based on transient leaps of faith which have been highly discredited in the Iron Sun discussion under the Alternative Theories forum. The measurements are good, the conclusion arising from the measurements are speculative, poorly evidenced and unsupported by any modelling or observation.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Duane and I hold opposing opinions about the internal composition of the Sun, and both views are equally important in advancing our understanding of this object.

It may be that the interior of the Sun has the same composition as its surface:

Hydrogen (the lightest element) = 91%
Helium (the second lightest one) = 9%

Or this may indicate selective movement of light elements to the solar surface, although inside the Sun and meteorites consist mostly of the same elements:

Iron (the most stable nucleus)
Oxygen
Nickel
Silicon
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium

There is a concept, Shinyata, which claims that opposites co-exist. Black and white. Up and down. Truth and untruth. Etc.

Thus, Duane and I are equally contributing to the advancement of our understanding of the Sun by holding these oppoising views.

One of the papers cited earlier, "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun is Obsolete", was dedicated to the memory of my late research advisor, Professor Paul Kauzo Kuroda. Kuroda was a genius nuclear geo-chemist relocated to the United States by the US military from the Imperial University of Tokyo after World War II.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

I would not have dedicated this paper with an unpopular opinion to Kuroda's memory if the evidence for mass separation in the Sun were not overwhelming.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

If you have something new to add, supporting your theory, or explaining away some of the many ways that your theory falls down in the light of scrutiny, please add it to the Thread in the Alternative Theories section.

BTW, it was nice of you to point out that the prevailing theory and your theory can co-exist like truth and untruth. It points out that your theory is most useful as a rhetorical tool.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Perhaps this advice applies to opposites:

"The Perfect Way is only difficult
for those who pick and choose.

Do not like, do not dislike;
all will then be clear.

Make a hairbreadth difference
and Heaven and Earth are set apart."

SENG-TS'AN

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Yep, retreating to nebulousity saves the day!



Ignore the research, the observations, the measurements and the facts! Listen to me, for I am right. I know this because I feel it to be so


Hey Dr Manuel, why don't you at least try to answer the questions we have posed to you in the Iron Sun Thread?

PS--Read again Rule 6:

Do I need to start editing?

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~